On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main,
> why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug
> "help", and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform
> says tha
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main,
> why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug
> "help", and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform
> says tha
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread,
and the
only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self
justification or off topic crap.
I think there were some interesting points fr
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about
> Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The
> non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our
> definition of fre
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and
the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is
self justification or off topic crap.
In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just
plain stupid.
There is no contradiction betw
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote:
> There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about
> Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The
> non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our
> definition of fre
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and
the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is
self justification or off topic crap.
In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just
plain stupid.
There is no contradiction betwee
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You may (or may not) be interested in:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
Well, I am interested about subject and so I will read available
information. Conversation about subject is over from me untill I have
"catched up"
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You may (or may not) be interested in:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
Well, I am interested about subject and so I will read available
information. Conversation about subject is over from me untill I have
"catched up"
Mikko Moilanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you cant understand what means
>
>4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
>
> then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean
> time too.
Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users
a
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600
From: Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On
Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: > >
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and
I >
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
>
># #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package:
>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100
Sender: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you are not able to understand what "Free software"
means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty
non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you
for choosing one
Mikko Moilanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you cant understand what means
>
>4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
>
> then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean
> time too.
Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users
a
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600
From: Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On
Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: > >
Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and
I >
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
>
># #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package:
>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100
Sender: Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you are not able to understand what "Free software"
means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty
non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you
for choosing one
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> > Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> > will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
>
> OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
>
> Ahem.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
> as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have yo
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> > Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> > will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
>
> OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
>
> Ahem.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for
> as long as i can remember.
Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did*
intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I
deserved to have yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
>> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of cu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the "..., or I quite!" argumentation a few years ago
in Debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to
>> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of cu
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
[...]
> Decla
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too.
OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1!
Ahem. We grew out of the "..., or I quite!" argumentation a few years ago
in Debi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote:
> Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
> wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
> opinions about X, Y and Z."? Yes, it is too much and that's why we
> need GNU FDL.
[...]
> Decla
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong".
...which is why you felt compelled to quote
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong".
...which is why you felt compelled to quote
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what "Free software" means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. T
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit :
> Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I
> will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A -> B.
So what? If you are not able to understand what "Free software" means,
maybe you don't want to use Debian. T
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> > free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> > close to being fre
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
Is it too much if somebody says "Please let others know that I did
wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal
opinions about X, Y and
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> > free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> > close to being fre
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
> free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
> close to being free it was at the time.
Well, for some values of "actually free", anyway.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
> >>wrote:
> >>>[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
> >>>a thread i
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
> saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
> assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a stra
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
> For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot.
Indeed, it's almost a tradition...
-Miles
--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous. For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns is wrong" should
> probably have read "Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong" -- which
> simply uses Anthony'
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the
> mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge.
Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people
would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have h
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without
causing
problems.
Is it
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>[...] Avoiding making ind
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
> saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
> assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a stra
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous.
The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive
way of having a conversation.
> For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns i
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really
> slanderous. For instance, the "Why Anthony Towns is wrong" should
> probably have read "Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong" -- which
> simply uses Anthony'
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > similarly, it's impossib
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
> >
> > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
> > you don't like some of th
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's
> debatable, but the "let's make everything better for the meek" program
> just isn't relevant to it.
Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > something about it - unfortunate
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
> > If so, it's not intentional, and pl
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the
> mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge.
Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people
would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have h
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the
> lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Do the Debian list managers enforce this policy, or is it merely a
wish?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
> complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
> complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But rega
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of
a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> > personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> > Mr Troup" or "Why A
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > similarly, it's impossib
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary
> wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
> >
> > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if
> > you don't like some of th
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's
> debatable, but the "let's make everything better for the meek" program
> just isn't relevant to it.
Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > something about it - unfortunate
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
>
Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the
> lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Do the Debian list managers enforce this policy, or is it merely a
wish?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to
> complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to
> complain about your pedantic idiocy.
Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic.
But rega
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> > personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> > Mr Troup" or "Why A
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote:
> but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the
> pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of
> what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few
> choice wo
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > > > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > > > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". But you don't seem interested
> in doing anyt
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Craig,
> Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
> discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
> they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> wrong. i will say what i please when i please.
Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU.
--
Raul
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
> >things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
> >thread is both more obnoxious, an
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote:
> but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the
> pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of
> what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few
> choice wo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
> and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
>
> i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
> don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a
> life.
Craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". But you don't seem interested
> in doing anyt
hi ted, craig,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Craig,
> Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of
> discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that
> they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> wrong. i will say what i please when i please.
Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
> >things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
> >thread is both
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying
> and outrageously abusive language.
No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something.
>
> i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you
> don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life.
Craig,
I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
> make the "meek" feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If some
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > pedantic froth
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things
unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread
is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems.
Is it really signifi
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> >personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems
> >with
> >Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:59:26AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
> > > asked us, me and aj nomina
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
> > asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and
> > refuse to do the same,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you
> asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and
> refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion.
>
> And now that you are aware of that, plea
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> > trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
>
> If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
>
> > My c
> if you want to argue with what i'm saying then argue over the content, don't
> make some stupid pedantic fight over word choices. it's just another boring
> variant of the spelling-flame.
People take offense at words designed to be offensive, and no one would bother
to use such words as fuck if
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> being stupid in public isn't polite, either, but it doesn't stop most people.
QED.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to
> make the "meek" feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up.
Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek.
If some
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for
> > weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say
> > something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of
> > pedantic froth
On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes
things
unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a
thread
is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems.
Is it
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> >personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems
> >with
> >Mr Troup" or
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
